1) I am no where near convinced that the Soviet Union was preparing for an all out ground assault on Eastern, Central and Western Europe.

That's all it was doing, building up a fantastic armaments base at a terrific cost in human suffering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchort

a) Had that happened, and assuming the Cold War would have happened and the USSR would have eventually collapsed, the peoples of those countries under Soviet control or influence maintained their national and ethnic identities and traditional cultures and societies. Following the end of the USSR, there has been a continuingly growing and strong nationalist swing (on top of their already racially and culturally pure nations). Other fanatical Hitlerists and 'White Nationalists' applaud those great Russian skinheads, Estonian nationalists, etc etc who are able to exist sans the Western/Judaized propaganda via entertainment. Was the communist influence on society really bad, from a Nazi/WN point of view? Please explain that to me- by your logic they should be the ones running around miscegenating and tearing down traditional values.

You will need to read Deception, by Edward Jay Epstein, to understand that the USSR did not "collapse," it was administratively dismantled for the sake of strategic deception and the pursuit of its founding objective of world "liberation".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchort

2) Make no mistake, the SA could have taken over the country by force by the early 30's- and they didn't because Hitler swore he would take the country democratically. Do not think they didn't because they couldn't.

This is incorrect, as is indicated by two facts:

1) At one point, the "Reaction" was prepared to arm the dis-armed SA for fear of a Communist coup. Of course, if the SA "could have taken over the country by force" using its own resources, there would have been no need for such a deal with a political opponent.

2) Roehm, to whom, as you say, the SA was loyal, continually ridiculed Hitler as "Adolf Legalite' " and seemingly was threatening a coup which in fact he was not. Thus we see that the SA had not restrained itself on Hitler's account, but rather for fear of the army.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchort

b) If the Strasserite NSDAP would have assumed control of the party (i.e. removing Hitler), the SA could have crushed any resistance. It is far fetched to believe the Heer, etc would have been able to do anything to stop them, assuming they would have wanted to

The Heer wanted to and did by making a deal with Hitler to eliminate Roehm, to whose defense the loyal SA did not rally because it could not with the army backing Hitler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchort

c)a nation so full of Communists would have been more sympathetic to a Strasserite gov't than a Hitlerite one, maybe no Dachau for political prisoners eh?

You will need to read Deception, by Edward Jay Epstein, to understand that the USSR did not "collapse," it was administratively dismantled for the sake of strategic deception and the pursuit of its founding objective of world "liberation".

This is where you go off into kookland Neonietzche. I hold out hope you are joking and just really like that particular episode of the Simpsons.

__________________
Quite transparently Trump has been compromised by the FSB. That's why the Russians went so far out of their way to help him.

Who knows, by the time this is over, it might take another Orange Revolution in the USA to settle this and kick the Kremlin out of Washington, and you guys might all have fled to Russia for sanctuary.
- Okie, delusional lunatic

I've already posted the CNN narrative, and I consider it pretty much accurate.

You will need to read Deception, by Edward Jay Epstein, to understand that the USSR did not "collapse," it was administratively dismantled for the sake of strategic deception and the pursuit of its founding objective of world "liberation".

This is where you go off into kookland Neonietzche. I hold out hope you are joking and just really like that particular episode of the Simpsons.

It is simply an error of fact to speak of the "collapse" of the USSR. It was, according to the closest analysis of the event, dismantled by Gorbachev's decree, under no pressure forcing the act, and with decades of life left in the regime. The supposed pretext for the dismantling is supposedly exposed in Gorbachev's supposed work of liberal enlightenment, "Perestroika," which in fact reads like a composition from the darkest days of the "Cold War".

The work of Anatoly Golitsyn, New Lies for Old, written in 1984, predicted subsequent developments, premised upon his alleged knowledge of strategic deception plans laid down in principle prior to his defection and his exposure of Soviet penetration of Western intelligence agencies at the highest levels.

We can speak further of this when you have had some more exposure to the issue. Have you read Deception, The Perestroika Deception, and SpyCatcher, for starters? Such material will naturally have to be heavily supplemented for your sake, I do understand, given the weight that an episode of The Simpsons brings to bear on issues of this nature.

You will need to read Deception, by Edward Jay Epstein, to understand that the USSR did not "collapse," it was administratively dismantled for the sake of strategic deception and the pursuit of its founding objective of world "liberation".

I do not doubt that the beaurocratic infrastructure could have lasted decades: the economic one could not and did not. I do not believe that there is a huge Soviet conspiracy to undermine the West by dismantling the USSR. It is on the same level as the idea that the Nazis really did put away large amounts of material/wealth to start a post-war NS movement- both probably have some documentation or little odds and ends of truth to them, but it is certainly not true, or we would have seen that influence. Unless the Nazis are still waiting for a big putsch and the Soviets are biding their time while Russia becomes ever more stable every year.

Quote:

This is incorrect, as is indicated by two facts:

1) At one point, the "Reaction" was prepared to arm the dis-armed SA for fear of a Communist coup. Of course, if the SA "could have taken over the country by force" using its own resources, there would have been no need for such a deal with a political opponent.

2) Roehm, to whom, as you say, the SA was loyal, continually ridiculed Hitler as "Adolf Legalite' " and seemingly was threatening a coup which in fact he was not. Thus we see that the SA had not restrained itself on Hitler's account, but rather for fear of the army.

1) Those kinds of deals were Hitler's doing- following the parliamentary path, no armed revolution, deals with big business, etc.

2) Hitler was still in charge of the party and Roehm was still his close friend and still subservient to him- he disagreed with Hitler on many things, and couldn't have expected to be assassinated by him.

Quote:

The Heer wanted to and did by making a deal with Hitler to eliminate Roehm, to whose defense the loyal SA did not rally because it could not with the army backing Hitler.

The SA did not rally around Roehm because the event was not published in the papers as 'Hitler has loyal National Socialist revolutionaries shot for threatening his new vision'. He killed off the SA's head by killing it's leaders and ideologues. The party members went back to work and/or joined the army.

The last remark I made was in reference to the huge number of communists and communist supporters in Germany- with whom the Nazis fought with on the streets for a decade. Hundreds of thousands of people- many of whom found themselves in jails, camps (Dachau), etc for political prisoners. A Strasser-Roehm government would have been more palatable to communists than Hitler's. Aside from monarchists, junkers and industrialists, it is possible the NSDAP would have been even more popular nationally. Just a theory.

BTW- Had Goebbels stayed with the Strasser side, an SA army, Roehm-Strasser government would have been entirely plausible had the NB's drawn first blood.

If we try to penetrate to the inner meaning of the word völkisch we arrive at the following conclusions: . . . .

Hehe, I realise now that this is an extract from Mein Kampf, I thought initially that you had composed it as a synopsis.

__________________
Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30 )